In my defense, I generally have 8-12 available plays in my "normal" set. I have a rule set to call the plays with equal weight against any 212 or GL set. I understand the dice roll means some plays will get called more than others. However, there are far too many extremes where one or two plays get called a lot and others are barely called or not called at all.

Here's an infuriating example from my most recent game in USFL



I don't know if the random selection process is broken or if I'm just extremely unlucky a lot of the time. I suspect something in the process is flawed, because I've long vented about the abnormality in play selection on both sides of the ball.

My suggestion is this: Avoid play overuse penalties if another play is available.

Hopefully, the ability to call not only by set but also by formation within defensive and offensive rules will come when JDB finishes the site revamp.

@JDB
Being able to determine by formation would do many great things:
1. almost eliminate play overuse on both the offensive and defensive playbooks for those using rules
2. allow for more specific, and better detailed defenses vs the opponent's "goto plays" as well as plays that become "broken."
3. allow GMs to get more specific in which plays to call when they use a rule for any exact situation.
4. potentially encourage GMs to use more plays for specific circumstances within a coach's playbook (see 3), further reducing the potential for "accidental" play overuse.
5. Increase differences, create uniquities, and limit copycats amoung active GMs.
6. Increase roster usage for specific plays being used in specific situations - thus decreasing the number of "never played" FAs etc.
7. Allow for GMs to quickly adapt to new versions/tweaks of MFN as they are released, as well as new strategies developed by GMs over the course of any future releases and MFN's lifetime.
8. add an entirely new level of complexity to a brilliant game many enjoy without having to do a full version/site interface overhaul, yet still enjoying simplicity and respecting the "set it and forget it" players.

A much easier route to dramatically increase gameplay, strategic, and adaptive options for all GMs across all versions and leagues of MFN, for what my thoughts are worth.

I can only hope to encourage further insight and discussion, as the idea of being able to go a step deeper - into formations - has long been an early morning sexy dream fantasy of mine here in MFN, hahah.

@infinity, the pic shown is pretty broad informationally, and does not rep the amt of games played etc, nor are any add/subtracts over those games noted.
My first instinct is to say, well, don't have yadda or yadda, or whatever, etc.
My second is to say, you are being ratioed, as sets in a rule are by ratio, I'm almost 100% sure, and perhaps due to over-ratioing a set, you are encountering a play being within the AI logic more frequently.

Now. That's all hogwash, as we both know you got a clue. A very good one in fact.
So, I would like to ask for more specific data: #games, any add/subtracts of a play in your playbook vs an opponent, and other stuff that one would be stupid to give out here lol.
Incredibly hard to do in a current season and not blow your cover. Respect, right?

However. That stated, anything you are inclined to share that is more specific, and directly relative to your very valid concern (it nails all of us nerdy nerds), would be greatly appreciated.

Frankly, I have to go through way too much work to avoid the AI from doinking me over on D.
...and it still does, sometimes.

I intentionally craft my rules so that each play is given equal weight regardless of down, distance, personnel, etc.

Here's an example of the available plays for a particular rule. You can see the weights are even. The rule is for any situation where my opponent uses 212 personnel.



My frustration is that, for any given game, the AI might get stuck on one particular play when others are not only available but should be called an equal amount of times. You might expect a slight variations based on chance, but not extreme variations. Unfortunately, the extreme variations happen all the time.

My proposal is to stop punishing people who do it right by forcing the AI to choose another available play rather than insist on overuse.

^THIS. All kinds of yes. With play overuse penalties, combined with limited plays available, the fact that one can have say, 4 M/B1 plays available within a rule, and only 1 will be called is very concerning.

Also, a few more basic plays need to be added. For example, in one of my leagues, the D playbook has 2 M/M plays. TWO! If one goes AWOL - and one always does, am i right lol - then I have access to 1 M/M play. In that same coach D playbook, in 1DM, I have 2 LB/B1 plays - crash right and left., and NO B1 in man coverage.
There is no way either I nor the AI can possibly avoid play overcalling.

It's simply become something I just don't worry about. Not because the problem doesn't matter, but because there is no solution available to me due to the playbook.

Lastly, allowing players to also select which formation to be used within a personal set for both OFF and DEF rules would also help the AI overcall issue.

All the above stated, I am quite sure most players would prefer KISS, myself included. The most logical choice with the least amount of work, perhaps, would be to tweak the AI play selection, and provide the AI with more plays within basic D concepts.

Last ramble :P Why not just have everyone have access to every play with the AI coaches calling by tendency (pass-focused etc). GMs get more flexibility, AI won't be choosing from 1 or 2 M/M plays (the entire problem imho), and everyone wins. Seems simple :)

I've wondered this myself. It seems like it would an easy step in the right direction before having to design new plays and expanding playbooks that way.

This appears to still be a problem. I have equal weight for all defense plays and the play selection is drastically different over several games. Any way around this?

This appears to still be a problem. I have equal weight for all defense plays and the play selection is drastically different over several games. Any way around this?

This appears to still be a problem. I have equal weight for all defense plays and the play selection is drastically different over several games. Any way around this?

This appears to still be a problem. I have equal weight for all defense plays and the play selection is drastically different over several games. Any way around this?